EPTAlso, the uses words "decisions" and "control" should really be scaled back when used in reference to healthcare.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2057
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Also, the uses words "decisions" and "control" should really be scaled back when used in reference to healthcare. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Supreme Court today handed the Obama administration a major victory on health care, ruling 6-3 that nationwide subsidies called for in the Affordable Care Act are legal. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," the court's majority said in the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. But they acknowledged that "petitioners' arguments about the plain meaning ... are strong." The majority opinion cited the law's "more than a few examples of inartful drafting," but added, "the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." Roberts was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as well as Anthony Kennedy. Source | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 26 2015 00:05 Introvert wrote: Destroyed? What's destructive is the Court ignoring the language of the law for the sake of politics. There still could have been subsidies, but a deal would have to be worked out in Congress. Instead, the Court took it upon themselves to "fix" the issue. Not their job. They didn't ignore the language of the law, they simply took into account the legislators' intent, which is exactly what they are supposed to do. That was a shitty and dishonest lawsuit, which would in addition have had a terrible impact on millions of people, and it was rightly thrown out. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21369 Posts
On June 26 2015 00:05 Introvert wrote: Destroyed? What's destructive is the Court ignoring the language of the law for the sake of politics. There still could have been subsidies, but a deal would have to be worked out in Congress. Instead, the Court took it upon themselves to "fix" the issue. Not their job. Yes lets have Congress hold the health of the entire nation as yet another bargaining chip to have retarded fights over. If the Republicans want to improve Healthcare and think the ACA is bad the answer is the same it has been for the last 8 years. Come up with your own worked out solution and campaign on that Don't rip down the ACA with nothing else in place. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2015 00:10 Gorsameth wrote: Yes lets have Congress hold the health of the entire nation as yet another bargaining chip to have retarded fights over. If the Republicans want to improve Healthcare and thing the ACA the answer is the same it has been for the last 8 years. Come up with your own worked out solution and campaign on that Don't rip down the ACA with nothing else in place. I'm sure it would be fine and they wouldn't do anything dangerous like de-fund the entire healthcare system over some petty issue. They have never done that with critical things like National Security. ...wait. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Obamacare is like this giant dead white oak in my back yard...nasty lean, definite widowmaker. I don't need to take the Stihl out there and cut it down. (i.e Roberts risking his own legacy) It's coming down by itself one of these days. -or- you pay near 5 figures to get a tree climber to go up it and cut it back piece by piece (Congress roll back). | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 25 2015 21:00 BallinWitStalin wrote: I don't know if what they are saying is true, but if there's a situation where a company can legitimately get away with forcing someone to work 70 or 80 hours without overtime, that's really fucked up. Welcome to America. Destroyed? What's destructive is the Court ignoring the language of the law for the sake of politics. There still could have been subsidies, but a deal would have to be worked out in Congress. Instead, the Court took it upon themselves to "fix" the issue. Not their job. What legitimate justification would there be for the Court to rule against Obamacare? You sure as hell can't say that Congress intended for it to be State-only since it uses the word "State", which has been used to refer to both provincial and national governments for at least 500 years. You're just incredibly biased and will rail against the Court whenever they make a decision that favors the Left, regardless of what that decision is. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
At least the liberals actually built a plan, proposed it, debated it, and then put it into action. Republicans haven't even gotten past step one  . | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2015 01:05 Jormundr wrote: Here's to another 6 years of conservatives getting a hefty government paycheck for r̶e̶p̶e̶a̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶b̶a̶m̶a̶c̶a̶r̶e̶ doing nothing. At least the liberals actually built a plan, proposed it, debated it, and then put it into action. Republicans haven't even gotten past step one . Step one is get into office pledging to remove something people don't understand. But then not remove it because it would hurt the people that elected them. Its like saying you will cut federal spending, except the spending that goes to your state. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
There was a similar carrot/stick principle when they tried to mess with medicare in the 2012 case. But Roberts has a legacy to build. I expect the liberal justices to change things as they feel is needed, they're liberals. But Roberts is ridiculous. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:11 Introvert wrote: Speed read the dissent, lays it out pretty well. Moreover, we knew from people who spoke on the law that this provision was meant to be both a carrot and a stick- states establish an exchange or lose the money. There was a similar carrot/stick principle when they tried to mess with medicare in the 2012 case. But Roberts has a legacy to build. I expect the liberal justices to change things as they feel is needed, they're liberals. But Roberts is ridiculous. Because the conservative justices haven't done this? "Corporations are people"? You're ridiculous Introvert. How you cope with the amount of bullshit you spew from your own mouth astounds me. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:14 Stratos_speAr wrote: Because the conservative justices haven't done this? "Corporations are people"? You're ridiculous Introvert. How you cope with the amount of bullshit you spew from your own mouth astounds me. Sure they have, though bringing up Citizens United for billionth time is hilarious. Do we have to go over this again? But as a matter of principle conservatives try to stick to some form of originalism, while liberals openly mock it. So yes, I expect the liberals to interpret the Constitution or laws as having to change laws for "modern times." Come on now. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:20 Introvert wrote: Sure they have, though bringing up Citizens United for billionth time is hilarious. Do we have to go over this again? But as a matter of principle conservatives try to stick to some form of originalism, while liberals openly mock it. So yes, I expect the liberals to interpret the Constitution or laws as having to change laws for "modern times." Come on now. Formatting messed up, have I ever mentioned that I hate touchscreens? ACK double post. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:11 Introvert wrote: Speed read the dissent, lays it out pretty well. Moreover, we knew from people who spoke on the law that this provision was meant to be both a carrot and a stick- states establish an exchange or lose the money. Actually, we knew from people who spoke on the law that the aim was for the law to cover people exactly like the Supreme Court ruled. But don't let facts enter your conservative bubble. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:34 kwizach wrote: Actually, we knew from people who spoke on the law that the aim was for the law to cover people exactly like the Supreme Court ruled. But don't let facts enter your conservative bubble. He is just mad that Robert's isn't towing the conservative line and has alternative opinions on the world. Pragmatist Judges are the bane of both the far right and left. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
Their stick didn't work, so they ran to the Court to save it. And the Court did save it. For the good of the people. Edit: yeah a lawsuit was brought, as only recourse. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:59 Introvert wrote: Interesting facts you have there, considering the words of one of the primary architects. Their stick didn't work, so they ran to the Court to save it. And the Court did save it. For the good of the people. The only people who ran to the Court twice were conservatives desperate to gut the ACA. And the Court shut them down twice. Good for the people. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:37 Plansix wrote: He is just mad that Robert's isn't towing the conservative line and has alternative opinions on the world. Pragmatist Judges are the bane of both the far right and left. Please. Frankly, the idea that Roberts is a coward is more complimentary than that he actually believe these lines he is agreeing with. When your own arguments just don't make sense, even before you get to policy discussion, then you know you are just saying to hell with it. The fact that we had the solid bloc of 4 voting the way they did in the last Obamacare decision, where the SCOTUS basically changed the White House's argument so it made even partial sense, and Hobby Lobby, where HHS didn't even follow their own rules, shows that they are just going to vote on their Progressive ideology. Even if you think a bill could be wrangled into something workable, you shouldn't allow it because then that crappy law gets enshrined and we get to read Op-Eds on the NYT about how they are "rolling back the clock" to 15 minutes ago. Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her. | ||
| ||
